An Illustrated Guide to Obama’s Gun-Grabbing

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has come under fire in recent days for anti-Semitic comments posted at my.barackobama.com, a portion of the first-term senator’s website where almost anyone can create a user account and post their own content. Once the offending content was flagged by bloggers, it came down. Obama defenders point out that the offensive comments were not posted by the campaign, which is undoubtedly true.

As Andrew Romano notes at Newsweek’sStumper, the Obama messaging campaign is a rigidly controlled and controlling device, “even bigger and savvier” than the Bush campaign’s run by Karl Rove. But while Obama can’t fairly be blamed for off-message posts on public access community blogs, he can be fairly criticized for his own stated positions, especially those that are purposefully deceptive.

Buried deep in his official campaign website’s “Issues” page, under “Additional Issues,” is a vague nod to sportsmen, noting that Obama has never been one, and a link to the candidate’s position paper, “Barack Obama: Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen.” A sharp observer would note that the document is named “Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf,” which makes one wonder if the campaign recognizes the rights of hunters in the southeastern and northeastern United States as well, and non-hunting gun owners nationwide. This is far from a petty observation; the candidate himself cited his spouse, traveling though rural eastern Iowa, saying, “You know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun.”

Out here? What about everywhere else?

It is rather ironic that Obama chose to use a firearms metaphor at a fundraiser this weekend when speaking about countering Republican attacks. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama is reported to have said.

Ironic – because the fact of the matter is that the Obama campaign recognizes no constitutional right to own firearms for personal or community defense. His website claims a position of:

Respect the Second Amendment: Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target, and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting. He also believes that the right is subject to reasonable and commonsense regulation.

Obama’s campaign explicitly only recognizes the right to own firearms for “the purposes of hunting and target shooting,” and insists on “commonsense regulation.” What is commonsense regulation according to Barack Obama? It depends on which Barack Obama you believe is telling the truth.

In 1998 Obama stated a desire to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.” Many people confuse semi-automatic firearms, which use the energy created when a gun is fired to eject the spent cartridge and load a fresh round, with automatic weapons, more commonly known as machine guns.

Semi-automatic firearms are the most common firearms sold in America today.

Barack Obama’s desire to ban “all forms” of semi-autos would include a ban on most common rimfire target pistols, including those used in Olympic competition.

Barack Obama’s desire to ban “all forms” of semi-autos would ban the Ruger 10/22, Marlin Model 60, and many other rimfire .22 rifles, which form the backbone of American shooting sports, from hunting to target shooting.

Barack Obama’s desire to ban “all forms” of semi-autos would ban firearms such as the Remington 1100 and 11-87, the Stoeger 2000, the Benelli Black Eagle, and other semi-automatic shotguns favored for shooting sports ranging from trap and skeet target shooting, to dove and duck hunting.

Barack Obama’s desire to ban “all forms” of semi-autos would ban the “AR” series of rifles, the best-selling centerfire semi-auto rifle design in the United States, commonly used in target competitions, hunting, and plinking, merely because it bears a family resemblance to the military machine gun, the M16.

In addition, Barack Obama is a strong proponent of reinstating the failed 1994 “assault weapons” ban, one of the most ineffectual laws passed in congressional history. Despite recent attempts to rewrite the history of what the law accomplished, the ban did not ban the manufacture, possession, or sale of semi-automatic firearms, did not ban the sale or possession of high-capacity magazines, and had the unintended consequence of creating an entirely new class of subcompact pistols designed for concealed carry.

The firearm on the left is the “pre-ban” Tec-9 pistol, one of those firearms outlawed for manufacture under the ban. On the right is the AB-10 (AB mockingly standing for “after ban”), functionally the exact same firearm, minus just the scary-looking cosmetic feature of a barrel shroud. The overwhelming majority of weapons “outlawed” by the so-called “ban” were already in gun shops in minimally modified legal configurations before the ban even became law. Sales never slowed, and for many models they increased.

The ban had no measured effect on crime. The freshman senator has never explained why he continues to support a failed law.

Obama has since dishonestly contested the issue, but his handwritten notes on a 1996 questionnaire show that he advocated a hardline position against handguns in Illinois, favoring a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.” He noted no exceptions.

Rare collectible antiques? Ban them.

Handguns suitable for concealed carry by citizens who have undergone background checks comparable to those of law enforcement officers? Ban them. Handguns used for hunting, competitions, or informal target practice? Ban them. Economical handguns purchased for family defense against intruders in crime-infested neighborhoods? Ban them.

As a point of fact, a careful reading of Barack Obama’s campaign website shows he does not recognize armed self-defense as a right at all, only explicitly recognizing “guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting.”

Barack Obama might concede that some firearms are permissible.

Keep in mind, however, that Obama’s on-the-record positions would support cities and states outlawing even those, lawsuits against gun owners if guns were stolen from their homes and were not “properly stored,” lawsuits against manufacturers if firearms were used in a crime, and the banning of gun shops within five miles of a school or park, forcing the majority of gun dealers out of business.

Barack Obama claims he “will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans.”

This is a bold claim made by a man with a record that suggests just the opposite.

85 Comments, 85 Threads

1.
JK

Now this is likely to get me into a bit of um, “controversy” here but. I need to say up-front, I own several firearms, two semis, three not. But to tell you the truth, it wouldn’t bother me a bit were I to express or feel a need to want another which currently I have no need of, nor desire:but if I did, I’d have very little problem with some proven agency (local jurisdiction only-the Feds make anything of the sort unwieldy and usually goofy) checking out whether I had say, shot out the streetlights or made threats prior to my obtaining such.

Regardless, the President makes no legislation, despite expressing any desire one way or another. And despite the naysayers, your elected representatives will respond to your voice provided he/she hears it. Were any such legislation to be introduced, all it takes is a few minutes to write your intent to pay attention to how your representative votes on any proposal and then vote accordingly. Plunk down your 42 cents, lick the envelope and mail it.

Paper usually is more effective than e-mail which seems to get “missplaced” when said e-mail arrives in DC. And they don’t have staff specifically assigned to read your “favorite blog.”

Plus, the NRA (which just about anyone can join) has proven to be a fairly effective citizen lobbying group.

This is NOT an endorsement, neither a signal that I personally intend to vote for the guy, just an attempt to inject a little reality into the mix of, on the one side-”the President is gonna take away my SKS”, and on the other, “let’s put a Beretta in the lunchbox of everyone beginning kindergarten.”

Where were the outraged howls from the Left when a SWAT team was used to sieze 5 year old Elian Gonzalez? Official positions on gun ownership mean next to nothing. What the Left really wants is a state monopoly on the use of lethal force. Bolsheviks! Obama needs to rework his campaign slogan into “Hope and Che!”

Well,the only firearm I’ve ever personally owned is a 9MM Spanish Astra 600 Parabellum automatic which was the standard issue sidearm for Luftwaffe pilots during WW2 as it was far superior to the German Luger,and I bought it for the historical value as much as for its practicality….it’s still in good shape and very accurate even though I had to have some pistol grips custom made for it a while back since they aren’t available commercially….it’s all I need and if Barky Obigot has a problem with that, then he needs to come see me

Obama is our next President. And we’re long overdue in prying your guns from your cold dead hands. You Republicans can’t be trusted with foreign policy, the economy, or even oil prices with all your rich Saudi friends. Why should we trust you with guns?

Perhaps firing some common sense downrange at some other targets would be, common sensical…Can “common sense” be applied to Barack “The Ptak!”‘s common sense about the 41 million unwanted, unalive, undifferentiated tissue masses so unconveniently tossed into stainless steel basins? Common sense tells us that by now, someone ought to have guessed wrongly, and we’d have seen the first live birth of said tissue mass…no? As this Messiah from Chicago was birthed in the media, sort of an immaculate brand Davy Jones/The Monkees, he arrived neither commonly, nor sensically, only non-sensically. His only connnection to firearms is the word recoil, as in the sentence, “Common sense recoils from demagogues, sycophants, sophists and frauds.”

Claiming that the President of the US has no effect over gun control is to ignore both the eight years of the Clinton admin and more than a half-century of rampant opression by the BATF prior to that.
Oppression by presedential fiat is something that only the most self-deluded are capable of ignoring.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright was correct — Barack Obama will say whatever he needs to say to become President. We have many examples of this depending on his audience and whether he’s pandering to the public or to a closed-door group of fellow travelers. Furthermore he has a very thin resume and public record. Consequently, we have no way to know what he believes or what he will do if he is President.

But looking at his actions (and specifically his votes in the Illinois legislature) we can say with confidence that in much the same way that he does not understand America beyond the liberal academy and radical left wing politics, he does not believe in the 2nd Amendment in any meaningful way. It it is merely an inconvenient vestige of a bygone era and most certainly does not include the right of self-defense.

So while the President doesn’t make legislation, he does appoint federal judges and he does sign or veto federal legislation like the Assault Weapons Ban. Voters who know that the 2nd Amendment allows them to protect their homes and families are entitled to know where he stands.

Based on his record and his unwillingness to acknowledge it, I already know.

Thanks for the heads up. You are absolutely right. If the Left wants a policy of appeasement vis-a-vis peace through strength, and statist/socialist economics over free markets, and a nationalized oil industry as per Maxine Waters, then you cannot trust us with guns. Molon Labe!

If BHO (let’s not use his name anymore) represents anything like the Chicago political machine he was brought up in, we’re in for scary times. Chicago, next to DC, has some of the strictest gun laws, albeit ineffectual. BHO supports these laws and regulations. Anyone who sees these laws as effective hasn’t cared to notice the murder rate by guns in Chicago. The answer, more regulation? This is what is scary to me. A man who purportedly should be connecting with the plight of the urban black, and also thinks that stricter gun laws will alleviate the problem of crime, is simply put, an idiot. The problem is a total disregard for the sanctity of life, the erosion of the nuclear family unit, and a high percentage of black men in jail, etc… How will stricter gun laws help this? It won’t. It’s a band-aide designed to satiate the drooling liberals into thinking they are making progress when they are really taking away rights. Which is funny, because that is one of the fundamental platforms they pitch their sale on… right to choose, right to affirmative action, but right to keep and bear arms? Forget the constitution, we just want to support whatever the instantly gratified want. Fools, this ship will go down if the children get their hands on it.

For the morons among us: The right to bear arms exists so that we can defend ourselves against criminals and out of control agents of the government. Letting agents of the government have wide discretion in telling you what you can and cannot have defeats the purpose.

It is our duty to resist any effort that would make it harder for us to revolt. Read up.

And for those of you that say “What about muslims living here, should they have assault rifles?”: the answer is to get rid of the muslims who are enemies of the constitution anyway, not the right to keep and bear arms.

If Barack is such a hotshot constitutional lawyer, where did he get the idea that the 2nd amendment was about hunting ducks and shooting skeet? The first congress was so concerned about skeet shooting being infringed by the federal government that they passed a constitutional amendment to protect it?

Reminds me of exit polls in the 2000 election showing that pro-gun voters were a significant reason why the Democrats were losing in some critical areas. When Gore was asked about it, he said ruefully that his party evidently hadn’t done a good job of making clear that they had no intention of interfering with the rights of “hunters and legitimate sportsmen.”

Obama’s Bitch: the left-wing Pew Reseach Group found not a plurality, but a majority of Americans support the NRA. Only about 20% had a negative view of it. So it’s you and your latte sipping pedophilic butt buddies vs. all the normal people who actually do real work for a living.

Those who believe the line that the Obimessiah threw out in San Fran (that the masses in their ignorance hold fast to their guns and their religion) obviously out number those with common sense (or belief in individual achievement) in the Ob team. The canard that banning weapon types lowers crime has been disproved over and over again (London, Washington . . .etc.). The only target audience such bans effect is the innocent.

Socialism is a lie (and impractical in every circumstance) because people are selfish by nature. Raising taxes to “stimulate” the economy is an oxymoron. It is a lie that they must understand (but feel they are immune to). Finally, banning guns to control crime accomplishes neither. The guns illegally get into the hands of the criminal, and into the hands of those willing to try to protect their homes and families (who also become “Criminals” by the ownership of a weapon).

More likely the one of the prime (though subtle) stimuli for the banning of firearms is the greater dependance it forces upon the populations. In the Black community (fostered by racial arsonists, and their willing co-conspirators) a culture of dependance and infantilism has been nurtured. When the politicians and racial arsonists convince their populations that there is “no hope” and success is “denied” to them and “impossible save through . . .” they are easier to control, (and divorced from the greater whole)

The potentials of any and all are not dictated by others. Potentials are what we believe them to be (and what amount of effort we will dedicate to achieve them). This is the truth, any party ( movement or religious figure) that denies this steals hope from those they claim to speak for

The sop of socialist promises, the lie of “Tax the rich!!” (class warfare) and the blood libels used to destroy hope in targeted populations are the tools of a movement that believes “divide and conquer” is more important than building a dream for anyone (with the will to succeed).

The OB (it seems) might be addicted to these politics of division. As a “professional” Pol in the Chicago machine he had to play the game to achieve his (and all politicians) goal of “job security without true accountability”.

Oh, if i am not a criminal ( or a mental patient) what I own, (and what I purchase) should be my business alone.

From 1994-2002 OHB served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Foundation, whose program list states as follows: “Gun violence: Funds research and advocacy to reduce gun ownership, deaths and injuries. This includes support of anti-gun groups.” William Ayers, the 60′s radical from the Weather Underground, served on the same board of directors.

Come and get mine, too. I assure you my hands will be neither cold nor dead.

As others here have said, gun ownership is a right we should cherish, whether we choose to own guns or not. The Second Amendment is as much protection for citizens against a tyrannical government as for individuals. You should fight for that right, rather than hand it over.

Not everyone should be able to own a gun. Just like not anyone should be able to be president…..

Here’s the winning metaphor, constitutional rights equate constitutional responsibilities. Those who operate with in these guidelines will save this country from this soros funded attack on the core of our nation.
(it’s the chinese in case you haven’t figured it out yet)

Am I the only one who caught this gaffe: “Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right”?

The Amendment does not, in fact, CREATE a right so much as it ARTICULATES a pre-existing right. At least, that’s what I learned in my pre-Howard-Zinn-influenced American history class back in high school.

“Obama is our next President. And we’re long overdue in prying your guns from your cold dead hands. You Republicans can’t be trusted with foreign policy, the economy, or even oil prices with all your rich Saudi friends. Why should we trust you with guns?”

…and what are you going to do when all fo those typical white, gun-totin’ rednecks who cling to religon AKA the Army and Marines, decide to rise up in defense of the constution and join the American people in turining you and your ilk into a carbon sink?

Any chance, Bob Owens, that we could get an IP address on “Obama fan”? Considering that he probably has some connection with the Obama campaign, an identification of him would be an embarassment to the Senator. “Obama campaign worker advocates genocide in America…”

Wow, Obama Fan, who said we want you to trust us with guns? Like WV Hillbilly said: come and get em.

I purchased and learned to use a gun after watching the Katrina Chaos on television. I decided that if the world was going to hell, then I planned to go down fighting. You can’t depend on the police to protect you during a terrorist attack or a catastrophic event — you have to depend on yourself — because the police will have more important things to do than to come and save your sorry butt.

With freedom comes responsibility — that responsibility includes defending your freedom whether it is threaten globally or locally. I plan to defend my freedom locally — and thank you Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard, Border Patrol for defending mine throughout the world.

If Obama is elected, the dems will probably also gain a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Supreme Court vacancies will be filled with judges at least as hostile to gun rights as those they replace. Lower courts will also be filled with anti-gun judges, catching up on the current backlog.

This would put gun banners firmly in control of all three branches of government. Any gains made by gun rights activists in recent years would be wiped out in the first year. It could take decades to reverse the damage, if it could be reversed at all.

I am always amused by any who imply “we the people” have rights so long as they say we have them. Our rights are inalienable. “We” (our founders) created this nation based on the “rights of mankind” to “INDIVIDUAL” liberty.
This Constitutional Republic will one day again need to be defended “by the people” as we delve deeper & deeper into state controlled life & all discover “the state” is the enemy if we permit it to overwhelm us & take constitutional rights away from “we the people”, along with those within the state who appease our enemies!
The guns keep the state at bay as the bureaucrats cringe & consider that if they push too far, they will be removed.

One of the first acts of Stalin when he came to power was to disarm the Russian citizens. Socialism then prevailed. If and I repeat if B.O. is our next president and he emulates Stalin ,blood will be shed ! November is five months away. Many things can happen in five months. I refuse to believe the majority of American voters are dumb enough to by into Socialism, a political entity that has failed over and over again.
American Christian Infidel

‘The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without ever knowing how it happened.’
Norman Thomas

“If Barack is such a hotshot constitutional lawyer, where did he get the idea that the 2nd amendment was about hunting ducks and shooting skeet?”

Barack “Barry” Obama is not “a hotshot constitutional lawyer”. He is a shallow and pseudo-educated individual. The importance of his Harvard University law credential is grossly exaggerated. This school is infamous for its inflated grading and the shabby standards of its many soft science departments.

All politicians like to control their constituents – Rep. or Dem. or Communist. They especially don’t like Guns in the hands of Citizens. “Only Government should control Power”. The only reason this hasn’t come about is that out Founding Fathers realized our rights to self defense hadn’t been addressed in the Constitution (and I believe there were laws passed in England restricting rights that showed the need for an Amendment).
Every time my right to “hunting” is mentioned by some politican I know the speaker has no understanding of history

Not only does the 2nd amendment have nothing to do with hunting but from a strict constitutionalist perspective I should be able to have in my closet the same militia arms that our military currently possess. I believe our township should have a well regulated militia of every able bodied soul who wishes to join. Sounds like a great opportunity for a regular NRA BBQ gathering.

First, they registered all the guns,
then, they picked up all the guns.

Then, they registered all the Jews,
And then….

The Nazis never invaded Switzerland because every male Swiss citizen had a rifle above his front door. Too many German soldiers would have been killed.

During Katrina, a particularly dumb N.O. policeman wrested a rifle from an old lady at a time when thugs were shooting at helicopters come to rescue people. There were no policemen to protect citizens, but this clueless fool wanted to deprive a frail old lady of self-protection.

I have no interest in learning to shoot. And I’m nearsighted. Wake me up in the middle of the night and I want a sawed-off shotgun by the bed to save my life. The paramedics are only a block away, but by the time they got here I’d be dead. However, leaving town would be impossible for a thief or thug. You have to pass the police station to get out of town.

No felons should be allowed to have weapons. No hormone-driven, potentially violent teenagers should be allowed to have weapons. Families with children in the home? Depends. Training. Lots of training. But if you’ve never been in trouble with the law, getting a gun permit for self-protection should be easy, especially if you own a store of any kind.

No buying at gun shows without background checks. A few other sensible rules.

Also, there’s a funny video clip I once saw of a thug in a subway and all the passengers are carrying concealed weapons, including a bearded Jew wearing a yarmulka. Does anyone know if this is from a film or a commercial?

Ah well, maybe today wasn’t the best day to begin a comment. My 30-something year old children fested me and I had to be away for my computer. By the way, I got shotgun shells and 30-06 rounds from one; a 30 pack of beer from another. I promise I won’t get snockered and go shooting out streetlights “Obama Fan.”

RIMFIRE: I agree with your assessment, I simply reverted to the politicians’ “tried and true” methodology. Ridiculous hyperbole.

CHARLES EATON: I still have my guns, my friends have theirs. So?

CAPITAN: You are absolutely correct. Politicians want to be elected so they…

OBAMA FAN: ?

SANDRA M. I agree.

There was one observation that I’d disagree with (only because I paid attention during political science) someone mentioned that Stalin was a socialist. Stalin was an autocrat, a totalinarist, Stalin being the autocrat. “Supreme know it all” sort of fellow who (if one checks the History out) killed more of his own countrymen than any socialist has (thus far) managed to accomplish.

If anyone is interested in what my daughters bought me, the ammunition was manufactured by Weatherby, the beer American. The eldest showed me her new HK (she’s licensed to CC. The youngest trusts her Colt 45, she too has a CC.) Oh, the Grandkids bought me Hallmark cards.

One has brought home a deer or four, the other only “targets”. But I am comfortable thinking that if they want to “off me”, they’ll simply say, “Hey Dad, why don’t you take a drive to our Nations’ Capitol.”

If I can’t be trusted to smoke a joint or make a phone call without the government spying on me without a warrant…

…I can’t trust you joe-jobbers with a device designed to kill humans.

Sorry! I refuse to accept the increased risk of private gun ownership. If you’re so scared where you live then move. Can’t afford to move? Tough luck son, it’s the pursuit of happiness. Shoulda tried harder in school.

Hey “Fat Sean” normally I’m not one to get into this sorta “YOU IDIOTS” game but I will make the occasional exception. And I’d mention that I like DARK HELMET’S take on things, as (I hope I get this right “VET IN LURKING”), I’m a lurking vet too. Took that same oath, “To protect and defend the Constitution”, First Amendment included.

I’ve not moved only because well, why should I? Should I not be entitled to live wherever I choose and to live in some modicum of security?

Anyone know (or hear of a guy named HL Mencken?) I do know he wasn’t considered in his time such a great guy but what the hey. His take on the politics of his day seems more appropriate today.

““Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

I realize what I’m about to type is likely gonna be taken as blasphemy by the (normally I’d call it the exremists on either side) people disageeing. But in my youth things actually got done. If something didn’t work, it got changed. Today we all call each other idiots and no one can “respectfully agree to disagree” and so nothing gets done. I’m old so I reckon ya’ll will just have to work it out. Good luck.

HL Mencken: “Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

LURKING VET: You’re correct. I took that same oath, “to protect and defend the Constitution” First Amendment of course being an adjunct to the Constitution was nevertheless part of what I swore to protect and defend. So Liberal Commie Socialist No-Goods had as much right to pursue their happiness as the rest of us righteous people. Within bounds of course.

DARK HELMET: I admire your sense.

FAT SEAN: “…I can’t trust you joe-jobbers with a device designed to kill humans.” Fat Sean, I will never give up my right to my pickup and my right to drive 55 or, depending on the state,75. Guns kill. Bacon kills. Cars kill. A meteorite landing on your head kills. Being born means that something is gonna kill you. I can see that while you may be as patriotic as the next fellow, you’d prefer that well… Fat Sean, if you are truly fat, be careful when you plug your air conditioner in.

“Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” HL Mencken

the 1st thing all good marxists do is take away the guns.this silver tongued marxist, who probably will be the next president, is no different. i believe obama is lucifer. i think he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. beware fellow citizens, if he is elected many changes are coming, and none of them will be helpful to you. it will all come apart, everything you have will be taken away. be warned!!!!

Doubtless if Congress passes such a law, he would sign it. Also doubtless, Congress will not pass such a law. Besides gun-control activism being a fair bit lower than it was back in the DLC-led heyday of 1993.

Today’s Democrats are also more conservative than the ones from 15 years ago.

So it’s a non-issue, really. As an Illinios state legislator his job was to represent and work for the people that elected him, and the people that elected him were urban and frothingly anti-gun.

As a Federal officer, he would have to recognize the rights of the states to expand or contract their gun laws as they see fit.

As an American, I have to make a choice: support Republicans becasue they are correct on gun rights but fight with them on virtually every other because they are wrong, or support Democrats because they are right on virtually every other issue but are wrong on gun rights.

And I’m more effective by focusing my efforts on a single issue than a spectrum. So, I’m a Democrat.

If the Republicans ever become the party of Eisenhower again, maybe I’ll switch.

It’s funny how such an “inexperienced” candidate is having his voting record from 10-12 years ago questioned so thoroughly. What were your opinions 10-12 years ago? I would hope that at least some measure of change has taken place. Given the fact that his most recent campaign information does not even hint at the banning of semi-automatic weapons, it would seem Obama’s opinions may have changed as well.

I should be upfront about my personal gun ownership. When I count all of the revolvers, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatics and various collector guns I have ever owned….wow! Total=0. I’ve thought about it but decided against it for no special reason. I acknowledge the arguments coming from anti-gun people as well as those coming from gun owners. I’ve come to realize that the old slogan ‘guns don’t kill, people kill’ is rather simplistic, but still true. I’m absolutely certain taking guns from law-abiding citizens and criminals won’t deter crime. The fear of what someone else may store in their homes is the one thing keeping a much larger wave of gun-toting criminals from breaking into occupied homes to rape, kill, and steal. Look no further than wealthy celebrities who may be anti-gun but hire armed security to patrol their grounds. The rest of us can’t afford armed security and may see that as overkill for our homes, but should have the right to bear or not bear weapons in protecting our families from the criminal element. Take away law-abiding citizens right to own guns only leaves guns in the hands of criminals who couldn’t care less about gun laws. In fact, banning guns would serve them in their pursuit to obtain what they believe is their right—your possessions, your daughter, your wife, your life.

I live in a Southern state, our Game and Fish Commission has established “seasons” in which to take game. Our GFC has established specific periods when that game ie certain mammals and of course those damned ducks can be taken (I don’t hunt ducks-too wet.)

Anyway this afternoon I heard on the scanner that a young person had been severely injured by another young person bashing the former on the head by a largish rock.

Yeah, this is going to help a whole lot because we all know that criminals obtain their weapons legally. All this is going to do is disarm the law abiding citizens who are trying to protect their families.

Maybe Obama fan could show me were in the First Amendment ,( free speech ) it says a woman has a right to kill her unborn child just before it is delivered . I’ll bet you will protect the right of every doctor who wants to perform a partial birth abortion , to carry an extra sharp knife .We already know Obama does .

Can anyone say, “STRAWMAN”?
While we fuse and fume about the potential loss of our precious guns, we have lost our right to speak freely, and our right to assembly.
Don’t believe me? Try taking your local AmVets group to the next Obama speech and tell the man he’s a lying no good SOB. Those two rights will be out the door in hand cuffs faster than crap through a goose.
There are 8 more ‘rights’ that are now, and have been for the last 60 years, tweaked, twisted and ignored without so much as a by your leave.
Read those 10 Rights again, http://www.billofrights.com/bill_of_rights.htm
, and consider how many ways our national, state, and local governments have ripped the guts out of them.
Now tell me what you intend to do with your gun when the only right you really have is to serve the state as it sees fit.
How many of you are willing to face your local National Guardsmen and offer your blood for the health of the tree of liberty.
I won’t be holding my breath for that event, thank you.

Since 2003, the Joyce Foundation has paid grants totaling over $12 million to gun control organizations. The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970 between 1996 and 2006 (When Obama was on the board making these decisions!), and calls for an OUTRIGHT BAN on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and SUBSTANTIAL RESRTICTIONS on gun owners.

Gun rights groups including the National Rifle Association call the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups”.

I’m a progressive–pro-choice, pro-stem cell, pro-gay rights, pro-science, an atheist, a feminist, AND A GUNOWNER!

Mr. O markets himself as an expert in constitutional law, but if that were true, he’d know the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting and everything to do with self-protection and fending off enemies, foreign and domestic.

Mr. O, you may win, but I cannot in good conscience vote for you. I refuse to aid and abet your destruction of my most precious civil right–the one that lets me live to enjoy the others.

A firearm is the only reasonable means of self-protection for a woman, and it’s MY right to keep and bear them.

Our form of Government with ‘Checks and Balances’ was setup with three branches of government; the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary.

The President (Executive) is decided my money (Soros, Chinese, OPEC, etc.) ‘The People’, the average Citizen, has absolutely zero chance of running for President without money. Money, (Soros, Chinese, OPEC, etc.) serves ‘The People’ up a menu with two choices: Barak Hussein Obama and John McCain. YES, ‘The People’ have a right to vote but the choices we have are not our choices, it is the money’s choices. Therefore ‘The People’ have lost their right to choose their Executive Branch.
The President (Executive) is decided my money (Soros, Chinese, OPEC, etc.) ‘The People’ have lost this right.

‘Money’ saw their success in the Executive branch and followed suit in the Legislative Branch. And, guess who has to confirm the Judiciary branch members. You got it, money (Executive/money) provides the Judiciary name and money (Legislative/money) provide the best money can buy to be our Judges. How cool is that!!!!!!!

What that leaves is ‘The People’, an average citizen, is told ‘the government’ (money-elected slugs) needs more of our money in the form of taxes and fees in every form imaginable so the ‘money-elected slugs’ can repay the ‘money’ that ensured their election to position.

OUR FORE-FATHERS protected us, ‘The People’ with the first two items in the Constitution. Imagine that, the first two; not the 99th, not an after-thought. THOSE TWO are all ‘The People’ have left. Give up those two; free speech and right to arms and “The People” are totally out of the picture. Money will have it all!!!!!

Don’t let that happen. Never for one moment think about giving up those individual rights. And especially never give up your guns.

THIS IS THE TIME OUR FORE-FATHERS FORESAW. THEY FORESAW THAT MONEY (GREED, THE DRIVE OF MAN FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME) WOULD TAKE AWAY “THE PEOPLE’S” FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. OUR GUNS CAN NOT BE GIVEN UP!!

In closing, I have seen posts saying certain people, i.e., felons, etc., shouldn’t be allowed the right to have guns. I disagree, every citizen has the right to arm themselves.
I will gladly stand beside any person fighting for this Country

I choose not to own a gun at this time. If I ever choose to own a gun I will go get one. We humans are at the top of the food chain because our bodies are tough and our minds are quick. I’m trying to think of a way for the federal government to stop me from owning a gun any time I decide to. It just doesn’t sound plausible. Maybe I’ll go get one before Obama takes office. just in case…

If you are buying only before Obama takes office, opt for a so called “assault weapon,” no other laws will change. There will never be enough congressional support, and I would be surprised if there would be enough to revisit the Clinton AW ban. Personally, my small collection turned into an arsenal under this last Bush. I was never in fear of the government coming for my guns, but I have learned to fear my omnipresent government and the largest expansion of it EVER in the last 6 years. I wanted to be prepared to arm my neighbors in case we needed a revolution.

I read a lot of “right” and “left” crap in this forum, but no one seems to say anything about how both of these charlatans seem to have the same agenda to take away all our rights…

sandra: the whole felons not owning guns thing is a farce too… if someone is so untrustworthiness that society cannot trust them with a gun, why are they allowed out of prison?

in addition, you all might want to research your state and local laws… many things are felonies that you would have no idea were even illegal… i can pretty well bet that given enough research into your past, a DA could turn anyone into a felon…

I can’t tell you how sick and tired I am of the Democratic boilerplate mantra about “Supporting the Rights of Hunters and Sportsmen” that the Obamabot and his Kool-Aid drinking acolytes are repeating.

Let me translate “Supporting the Rights of Hunters and Sportsmen” ONCE AND FOR ALL into what that dopey statement actually means:

“”"It’s OK for you to shoot, kill, and eat Bambi’s mother, but it’s NOT OK for some woman to chase off a would-be rapist by pointing a handgun at him.”"”"

Most of us are not hunters or “sportsmen,” whatever in God’s name that actually means. Most of us would like the option to own a handgun if we so choose, and WE as individuals get to decide for ourselves what is a compelling reason to do so.

If there is ever another revolution in this country, people like obamafan will be 1)executed without trial, or 2)Put through a show trial with a predetermined verdict and then executed. I’ll be laughing at them as they die. See how you like the government coming down on you and depriving you of your rights.

Once they get our guns, they can go for our other rights and have no opposition because they took our guns. We need our guns. So we can maintain our ability to stand up for our families, our religion and our God.

Paules:,
keep up that sort of mindless Bolshevik rheoteric and help make us gun owners look like idiots.

Obama is a gun grabber and I hate that term but it does apply to him. Even if he doesn’t get the legislative support he would need, there is still plenty of executive power leeway he could exploit to make gun owner sweat.

But here is a fact to chew on: Countries with strict gun control, like in Europe, have far lower levels of gun violence. Not that I care. That is a vestige of the old feudal days when only noble and soldiers had a right to bear arms.

The residents of South Chicago. Anyone who’s spent any time listening to the hate and evil spewed from the pulpits by those “men of God.”

It was just last month that South Chicago erupted in gun violence. And it should surprise none of us — now that we know what anger must be roiling inside each and every one of them.

And Obama was a party to it for decades. Getting the church to join with his “community organizing” (read: agitate, Alinsky-style) was his idea. Planting evil in the hearts of men — in a House of God — there are few things more vile. Nothing but the product of a twisted, perverted mind.

What was his response when he heard of the violence? “Isn’t this a shame — I’d like to discuss this with the mayor.” He’s either the biggest idiot or the most evil man to run for president ever.

It would seem outbursts of violence like this might conveniently lead someone who wanted the laws changed to finally get the public’s approval.

If we see more violence in the future, I say we point the finger every time to the radical “churches” that teach their communities to hate and envy their neighbor. Don’t believe for one minute they’re Christian.

I’ve said this before — Obama and his pals had better show me their “answers” work in their own community before they foist them on the rest of the nation. So far, all I see is unmitigated failure.

I find some very disturbing facts made evident by this series of comments. There are a whole lot of posters here who have no knowledge of the, ‘right’, they are posting about.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is designed to give you, the citizen, the power to overthrow an American government that has run amok. It has nothing to do with hunting, or shooting sports, or keeping rapists at bay, or protecting your home and kids.
Arms can aid you in all those endeavors but that isn’t what the 2nd Amendment is about.
By the way a nice, sharp, double bitted ax is a better crime deterrent than a pocket sized hand gun. Beside it’s a real bitch to try to chop wood with a PPK.

>>”sandra: … if someone is so untrustworthy that society cannot trust them with a gun, why are they allowed out of prison?

>>”in addition, … many things are felonies that you would have no idea were even illegal… i can pretty well bet that given enough research into your past, a DA could turn anyone into a felon…

I agree. Last week, Bill O’Reilly printed an email of mine in which in response to lesbians kissing in public I cited Lady Nancy Astor’s principle that she didn’t care what people did so long as they didn’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.

If people want to binge drink or get stoned, I believe they should be urged not to, but it’s a free country and if they wish to commit slow suicide I have no objection until and unless they get in a car in which case they are armed with a deadly weapon and should pay huge fines and be sentenced to rehab. They should also have to put a bumper sticker on their car warning others: BEWARE!! DRUNK DRIVER ON BOARD. or BEWARE!! DRUG TAKER ON BOARD.

We have always been too lenient towards drunk drivers because so many WHITE pillars of the community drive drunk.

We are spending more on prisons than on universities. (Fine the hell out of white collar and non-violent criminals. Keep the cages for the violentl as we do with rabid dogs. And I agree that we have too many laws and our system makes little sense.

People are imprisoned for having kiddie porn on their computers. What happened to the 4th amendment laws againstgsearch and seizure? However, if a man commits an act of pedophilia or rape, which tend to be repeat crimes, imprisoning them for a few years, releasing them because “they’ve paid their debt to society” makes no sense. What “society” That’s a non-existent abstraction. And as with the Communist abstraction “the people” if you get in trouble you’re no longer one of “the people.”

Repeat rapists and pedophiles should live on islands away from women or families with children. Being told there’s a pedophile living in the neighborhood will just terrify parents. Worse, what if you’re not told the pedophile’s there to protect the miscreant’s “rights”. Commit a crime and your rights are abrogated.

Also, the criminal class is either evil or dumb. We can’t hope to teach the dummies more than 2 or 3 commandments at most. How about

Thou shalt not steal (and why, what it does to your “brothers” and the neighborhood), The Black underclass both IN and out of prison really needs to be taught the economic consequences of their thefts in driving small shops out of business etc. Most probably won’t give a damn, but at least perhaps they’d stop all this hypocritical “brother” malarkey.

Sigh! We might take a crack at Thou shalt not bear false witness, i.e. thou shalt not lie, but who knows what luck we’d have with that.

There were devestating hurricanes in Texas and Orange County, California People took shelter in stadiums and within days the stadiums were hosting sports events.

In New Orleans, the Vietnamese-American community turned for help to their Roman Catholic priest who got the signatures the bureacracy demanded and the community got its homes rebuilt and is back in business. The houses Brad Pitt wanted to sell off are sitting there. And there are still Blacks wandering around and whining.

N.O.’s mayor and his staff weren’t around when Amtrak offered 2,000 seats on its trains. One enterprising Black teenager stole a bus, loaded it up with whoever wanted to high tail it out of townl, went to Houston and became a hero to many. The other buses just rusted out, Remember? The white woman governor, valiumed to the gills, and pissed at the mayor would not allow the Red Cross to enter. Brownie had made a disaster of the formerly effective FEMA, and it wasn’t until a tough Black officer started ignoring bureaucratic red tape, that anything good happened.

Indonesians watching the news were amazed at Black thugs shooting at the helicopters coming to rescue people.”What kind of people are these?” they asked. Yes, violent and out of control, prone to riot, and to prove how dumb they were, stealing TVs while the water was up to their thighs (Wal Mart had opened its doors and told people to take what they needed. But plasma TVs? Then, when they were given several hundred dollars in Houston, some bought Gucci handbags, some bought lap dances, some bought drugs. And then they needed more money. They always need more money. And for their compassion, the states that took them in had to cope with increased crime rates.

What happened to Blacks in New Orleans WAS a tragedy. I have great compassion for the elderly and the young children, but none for the thugs who went on “shopping” sprees.

A woman I knew who lived in a high rise in Los Angeles during the riots told me that it looked as if the attacks on Korean stores were planned. Korean shopkeepers took to the roofs with rifles. She moved to New Mexico.

When Blacks riot, they frequently burn the neighborhood down. An intelligent Black man said: “They burn down the neighborhood. They think that will make things better?”

I remember Liberals excusing black riots. “They have so little, no wonder they riot.” So with excuses came more riots.

Very politically incorrect of me to write this post, but Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation theology have knocked all the political correctness out of me.

I had a conversation with a college student about guns and he stated that all guns should be taken from the public. He knew nothing of the second amendment. I then stated that I could build a gun and he laughed at me, hysterically I might add. I asked him if he knew what a zip gun was? He said no. I explained to him that during the 50′s one could use a car antenna, a nail and some rubber bands mounted on a piece of would to make a gun which at the time was called a “zip gun”. More hysterical laughter and when he caught his breath he said I was a crazy old man. Old? Yes! Crazy? No way. When the thugs couldn’t get guns they made them, now they just steal them.

To Sandra M:
You really know a lot about nothing. Your rant is about numerous items that you skim the surface on but never delve below the surface and look;see/analyze what the truth is on any of your rants.

One thing in particular, that Chris pointed out, is your misconception of felons. A felon in this country is not necessarily a viscious derelect. This Country and particularly Colorado has laws that include sentences that require life in prison if convicted. A person charged with a crime that is not necessarily guilty is more-less forced to take a felony conviction in a plea bargain than to face a possible sentence of life in prison because certain crimes, particularly sex-related crimes, if taken to a jury trial are full of jurors with your atitude (Guilty as charged or guilty until proven innocent). Still the same, you and most Americans look at felons and stereo-type them, when in all actualality they are bot guity of anything but were forced to admit something in order to not face life in prison. Enough said!! You might want to take a look at who all you are judging and convicting in your rantings and see if they are based on facts. I used to do that because I believed this country ‘was fair’ and ‘honest’ people judged dishonest people, but I found good honest people are convicted because they have no choice or the risk is too high to try to fight a conviction if they lose.

JK is absolutely wrong! a Us president has executive power over firearms: restriction of the import of most firearms; classification of semiauto shotguns as comtrolled weapomns, and other inrepretations of firearms regulations, and of course, direction of the resources of the ATF. Additionally, there would be grave problems were an Obama to sign a UN gun ban, as a treaty. If ratified by the Senate, it would be law. While it may be eventually overturned, no doubt there would be an effort to confiscate all the guns before the process was completed.

The “claim” that the 2nd Amendment “protects the right of the State to arm its Militia” is utterly laughable. Does, that now mean then a negative ruling on “Heller” will disarm all the State police? Anyway, the Bill of Rights doesn’t belong to the Supreme Court, it belongs to the people, something a “not so distant” future tyrant would do well to keep in mind. Add up all the LE personnel in the US and you will find it is quite insuficient to disarm the citizenry. So why even try? I can assure the future tyrant, even “hunting rifles” are quite competant at defending freedom.

So what is the preemptive solution to “Obama?” Buy your guns NOW!! Thanks to the current Russian government liquidating hundreds of thousands of arms kept by the “paranoid” Soviet government, having an Obama insurance policy has never been cheaper. And thanks to a little bit of the US Constitution, a prohibiton of “Ex Post Facto” laws, the government can’t just coma and take your guns away. At the very least, they would be required to pay you for them.

In closing, I have seen posts saying certain people, i.e., felons, etc., shouldn’t be allowed the right to have guns. I disagree, every citizen has the right to arm themselves.
I will gladly stand beside any person fighting for this Country.

Larry
CMSgt, USAF (Ret.)

Sadly Larry, you are wrong. Felons have lost their right to keep and bear arms by their own doing.

Here in the cities with unchecked gun violence, we’re all voting for Obama. To those of you who want the NRA to cast every vote, obsess about second amendment rights, and worship guns: We got all the guns you need… Come and get em.

Many of the members of the sportsmans club I belong to are Democrats. Not all of the Dems are anti-gun!
As to David’s “Unchecked Gun Violence in the Cities”, the problem is not guns, the problem is judges who consistantly let offenders off with minimal sentences because, he’s from a poor neiborhood, he didn’t graduate school, he never had a father at home to teach him right from wrong, he hangs with the wrong crowd ETC…….. I’ve seen 6 month sentences for robbery w/ a firearm. Jurists say prisons are overcrowded. Put two or more offenders in a cell, it ain’t summer camp! Make the offenders life miserable, don’t take away the honest citizens rights.

Larry, the criminals with guns are not fighting for this country. They are merely fighting in this country, against other Americans. They are terrorists, and you being a fellow Airman, should revisit the oath you envoke:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
You can’t possibly cite the oath and then defend the felons possession of firearms. It is obtuse, at best, and is an embarrassment to the sanctity of the oath. You swore to protect the Constitution and the U.S. from these domestic terrorist, so lay down the bleeding heart for these thugs who should be lined up for the next flight to Guantanimo. Instead, remember that, retired or not, there is no time limit on the oath. You agreed and served, and I applaud you for that. But take a closer look at the sentiment you are spreading, which is totally unacceptable. Bear true faith and allegiance like you promised.

I was sold my fire arms legally! I used money I recived legally! I signed a legal document to have it by law! So if any stupid so and so wants to take it a way from me now, I pitty the damn fool that trys!

I’ve read all of these comments. I’d first like to say that I am 17 years old, in high school. I’ve been reading the bull-shit dished out by these stupid democrats for a little over an hour now. If this guy who calls himself president thinks he can take my guns away…all I can say to that is…come and get them. And to you dumb asses who think ppl only use guns to hunt and say stupid stuff like “if u have to have a semi to hunt your horrible and shouldn’t be shooting anyways”, all I have to say is that I do not hunt, I own many guns, and I can shoot pin-point accurate at over 100 yrds away…and I’m an ammature. Imagine all the otheres that are 10 times better than me you’ll be facing. Why do you think that noone invades the US?? They are scard shitless of us because they know we have guns and we know damn well how to use them. OH! and btw I spent a TON my hard earned money on my Ruger 10/22 Long Rifle and you will HAVE to kill me before you take that from me. And if you THINK you have balls enough…I’m not hard to find.